Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Bagpuss]

It's that removal of player choice that I, and several other people, object to.

With many characters getting only 2+Int skills ranks per level, and most having at least that many must have skills, the player doesn't get much/any choice with the current system.

 

[pawsplay]

That's how wizards are currently doing it now in the current rules-system.

I can't for the life of me figure out what this response is supposed to mean. Clarify, elaborate?

 

[Celebrim]

A DC lower to the point where it's conceptually silly. To give a 10th-level fighter a chance to traverse a narrow walkway, it cannot be narrow at all, since even a DC 10 check will present problems to him, while a 10th-level rogue might easily have +20 to balance.

What I'm saying is that if the rogue has a +20 to balance, you aren't going to set the DC even as high as DC 20 even in a SAGA-like system because you are going to have party members with around +10 to Balance, and with 4 other party members each with a 25%-50% chance of falling you are just about garuanteeing that one falls. Instead, even in a saga like system, you are going to set the DC based on the average balance check of the group, not based on the balance check of the best member. Otherwise, your skill test is IMO unfairly hard. You certainly aren't going to set the DC at 25 to challenge the rogue, because then the rest of the party is still doomed. So, since the DC of a group challenge depends on what is an average skill and not the best skill, does it really matter except in terms of flavor whether the balance check is DC 10 or DC 15 or DC 5? Either way, the rogue easily passes what is a difficult test for everyone else.

Less certain in Saga, where the difference between the best and the worst will be somewhere around 15 (at all levels!), than in high level D&D where the difference between the best and the worst can be 30+.

I don't think that is relevant. The only way to make a group challenge challenge the strongest individual is if the average skill of the group is very close to the strongest member. A difference of 15 (+75% chance of failure) isn't close enough to solve the problem. Besides, focused 20th level rogue with 22 dex vs. armored 20th level Paladin with 10 Dex is a difference of more like 20, which might as well be a difference of 30 or 35. I just don't see this as being necessarily a big net gain in gamability.

Why is this desirable, other than to make it work better under the existing rules?

As a general rule, aren't group challenges better? Because they challenge the whole group, rather than having three out of four people just sitting there hoping that the one guy does his job?

I don't think you understand my point. From the DM's perspective, you are trying in a group challenge to get everyone involved and from that perspective a group challenge is 'better'. But from the PC's perspective, if there is a significant risk, then it is always 'better' to turn a group challenge into an individual challenge if they can because this mitigates the risk. Before you gain a large amount of PC involvement, you have to have some system that rewards group contribution. At present, I'm not sure what such a system would be like, nor am I sure that you can have such a system and not railroad the players.

The thing is, under current rules, spot checks are utterly unexciting for my 15th-level wizard. If there's a doubt the group (including the 14th-level scout) will see it, he cannot succeed, ever. If he has even a chance to see it, the scout will certainly see it anyway.

True, but the scout's spot check keeps your scout from being surprised in an ambush, but it doesn't (necessarily) keep your wizard from being surprised. So, even if the scout has no chance of being surprised, the wizard still has a stake in the challenge. If the parties average spot DC increases systematically, the DM will simply be encouraged to increase the DC of the challenge accordingly, but you really aren't going to ever challenge the specialist with this sort of thing if the gap is even as big as 15. Because if there is significant risk of the specialist failing, then almost certainly everyone else will as well.

If the difference between our modifiers was 10 or 15 instead of 25, the scout would still be a great spotter and my wizard a crappy spotter, but I'd be interested when a spot check was called for.

Suppose that the difference is 35, and your bonus is +2. You are still interested in the DC 13 spot check to avoid surprise, even if the rogue has absolutely no chance of failing it. And the rogue still has no chance of failing it it the difference is 15. Ahh, but you say what if the DC is 23, wouldn't it then be more interesting if my bonus was +12. To which I respond, you as a DM choose the DC. The DC in the example is 23 because the bonus is +12; the bonus isn't +12 because the DC is 23. So, I don't see the improvement unless you prefer the fluff - what action that higher DC is supposed to represent.

And it might be argued that it produces unreasonable results to do otherwise. Isn't it strange that a 20th-level guy will almost always beat a 1st-level guy at a dagger-throwing contest or a drinking contest, but the 1st-level guy might easily wipe him out in a balancing on logs contest?

Not so much. I figure adventurers do alot more killing and drinking than log rolling.

 

[Celebrim]

With many characters getting only 2+Int skills ranks per level, and most having at least that many must have skills, the player doesn't get much/any choice with the current system.

And you want Int to be more of a dump stat than it already is? Granted, the new system may give more uses to Int to replace the missing advantages of high Int, but still there is a cost to giving 'skill points' for free.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Now, Saga does it for all skills, and one might well wonder if getting better at engineering by adventuring makes as much sense as getting better at spotting ambushed by adventuring. But this is where the details of the implementation come in: how much can you do with your untrained +10 to knowledge (engineering and architecture) at 20th level, compared to a trained +10? Or a trained +5? Or perhaps knowledges don't auto-advance?

Just use the 3e rule that if you aren't trained in a knowledge skill you can only make common knowledge checks (DC 10).
So a 20th level Saga skill user with +10 to Knowledge (X) will know any common knowledge about the topic. But only a trained character will know greater details and only a character with skill focus (giving a base of +20) can reguarly hit the DC 30 checks for knowing the answers to the most difficult questions related to the topic.
Same can be done with the craft skill. With out training a character can only hit DC 10 checks with craft.

The only problem I see with saga style skill system is it has trouble representing characters who only dabble in some areas, being some where between trained and not trained.

 

[Celebrim]

Now that's an interesting statement. I don't really have a response, except to say that while success is inevitably involved, it's not the crux of the issue. My experiences have been that gamers like an interesting failure more that a dull success. I think your really overstating the typical players desire to 'win' all the time. Or am I misreading that?

No, you aren't misreading that. Maybe I'm just used to playing with hypercompetitive PC's, but my experience is that players gravitate to the 'winning' strategies of a system. They'll do things just to have fun, but only if they don't think they are putting thier character, the mission, or the party at significant risk. That doesn't stop them from enjoying a nice long melodramatic RP, but when it comes to life and limb they get really serious about the winning part. Cynically, you could claim that there desire to RP well comes in no small part from a desire to 'win' the social challenges.

Someone has a quote by Gygax concerning how players approach the game that seems to back up the idea that my experience isn't by any means unique.

 

[AllisterH]

.

It's that removal of player choice that I, and several other people, object to.

Then again, assuming that the 4E skill system is closer to SWSE's skill system (might not be an exact one for one match), player choice is reflected in other avenues other than skill ranks.

I mean if a player wants to say "I'm so good at this skill that I'm DA MAN" the player will take Skill Training (adds +5 to check) and Skill Focus (another +5). If they still want to be "better", they take Talents that help (such as being able to get a +5 luck bonus once per day, re-roll any skill check and take the better result, take 10 under pressure)

 

[Celebrim]

The only problem I see with saga style skill system is it has trouble representing characters who only dabble in some areas, being some where between trained and not trained.

We haven't talked about it much, but it is for that reason that SAGA handles multiclassed characters in such an ugly way.

Also, there are alot of skills that really really reward dabbling. We've talked alot about balance, and that is an extreme case in point. Most ordinary balance challenges you run into aren't along the lines of 'walk across the tight rope', but rather 'run down the steep uneven slope', 'chase the villain across the frozen lake', 'charge through the bracken', or 'fight in the slippery muddy cavern'. Essentially, any mundane risk of falling where you can't take 10 on the check because you are rushed and/or in danger. These sorts of mundane balance challenges don't require large investments in balance to have big payoffs in a character's success rate. My rogue might not necessarily invest many points in balance so that he can run along tight ropes, but he almost certainly will dabble enough to handle ordinary terrain challenges (freeing up points to dabble somewhere else). And getting 5 ranks in balance to avoid flat footed penalties is just huge for any class.

Anything with basically static DC's and no opposed checks heavily rewards dabbling (craft, handle animal, heal, knowledge, ride, swim, survival, use rope, several other skills depending on how your DM handles them). Synergies are another thing that heavily rewards dabbling. Multiclasing tends to encourage this sort of thing, with people taking small dips from skills.

Now, everyone dabbles 'for free'. To resolve that problem we have to make large distinctions between the trained and untrained uses of the skill, placing a mental burden on play during the session rather than simply during the leveling up process. I just don't see how the advantages here outweigh the problems.

Fortunately, it sounds like the design team recognizes that the SAGA system has some problems and are going to tweak it, so maybe they'll come up with something I'll be happier with than a straight port.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Suppose that the difference is 35, and your bonus is +2. You are still interested in the DC 13 spot check to avoid surprise, even if the rogue has absolutely no chance of failing it. And the rogue still has no chance of failing it it the difference is 15. Ahh, but you say what if the DC is 23, wouldn't it then be more interesting if my bonus was +12. To which I respond, you as a DM choose the DC. The DC in the example is 23 because the bonus is +12; the bonus isn't +12 because the DC is 23. So, I don't see the improvement unless you prefer the fluff - what action that higher DC is supposed to represent..

Keep in mind that some DCs are more or less "mandated" by the rules - if you have a group of ambushers, they will probably have hide and move silently ranks. Sure, they don't have to maximize the skills, but if these enemies are supposed to be sneaky, why haven't they maximized it?
If the level is high enough, the skill difference between untrained and trained reaches a point where any one not maximizing spot cannot succeed. And that's the point where it is no longer interesting for anyone besides the "skill maxer" to make such a roll.

Yes, as the DM you can change this. But why can't I just take the system out of the box, use its general implications and reach a satisfiable result for all players?

 

[Celebrim]

Keep in mind that some DCs are more or less "mandated" by the rules - if you have a group of ambushers, they will probably have hide and move silently ranks. Sure, they don't have to maximize the skills, but if these enemies are supposed to be sneaky, why haven't they maximized it?

This is an opposed check situation. Part of the difficulty I have in answering this question is that I feel that some opposed checks are inherently broken as linearly opposed, and the perception/hide relationship would be a case in point. Part of the problem is that the current spot/listen rules are inherently abusable, so that it is easy within the rules to justify ambushes where even the guy with +20 spot doesn't stand a chance. The real fix here is in my opinion changing the way hide works and in particular how it works in relation to spot checks - but that is a totally different conversation.

I do however understand your point and in fact already conceded this earlier in a different context. There are cases where things improve if the range between skill checks gets narrower, and in particular they improve where there is a mandated high check (opposed check most likely) where the risk of failure is real but not overly large (you don't fall into lava or have a castle fall on you). In that case, its easier to get some intermediate result over a wider range of levels than in the current system.

So there is definately room for improvement, but that improvement must be balanced against the reduced flexibility (dabbling, rather than binarily trained or untrained), loss of niche (classes which aren't associated with the skill are just as good at classes that are associated with the skill if the character hasn't chosen this as a trained skill), ugliness of multiclassing, increased skill complexity (more separation between trained and untrained uses), and power creep (everyone gets broadly better, numbers getting larger for the sake of getting larger) of the proposed solution.

The aforementioned problems in the hide/perception mechanics weigh more heavily on me than the potential for wide variation in skill checks.